Lay on the Table vs Postpone - May 2011  

At the regular weekly meeting of an organization, a member moved to “table the pending main motion until the next meeting.” The motion was seconded and stated by the chair, whereupon a second member moved to amend the motion by striking out the words “the next meeting” and inserting “three o’clock.” The chair ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that a motion to lay on the table cannot be amended. How should the presiding officer have handled the motion “to table until….”? Was this not a motion to postpone? 

Opinion:  The presiding officer should have stated the motion as a motion to postpone, which indeed it was. Misuse of parliamentary terms cannot change the facts. The motion to postpone to a certain time is “amendable as to the time to which the main question is to be postponed…” (RONR – page 174). The amendment should have been accepted by the chair whether or not the motion to postpone had been correctly stated.